Subject: Ackanomic Digest V1 #324
From: [email-masked] (Ackanomic Digest)
To: ackanomic-digest

Ackanomic Digest       Friday, November 1 1996       Volume 01 : Number 324

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Thu, 31 Oct 1996 20:33:23 -0600 (CST)
From: Jason Orendorff <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: P1363 Fails

> I did not like that a hearing ended at the end of a cycle.  Its
> more work for me, oddly enough.  I like everything to be 3 days.
	I do too.  I can't honestly say why I threw that in there.

> Also, I like the way the rules are worded currently in this area.
> Had it not been for the first objection, I would have voted present,
> though.
	To me, the main effect of Hearings would have been to allow the 
process to be automated by ensuring that all Hearings are conducted the 
same way.
	Also, I would like to be able to change my mind on a Hearing 
after I've voted.  Last, and utterly unimportant, I would have 
liked to see a Gadget that zaps Hearings.  :o) 

- --Mohammed
ex-Inventor
ex-CotC
starved for free time
C++ hack
holder of the Right-Handed Grapefruit

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 31 Oct 1996 20:50:15 +1800 (CST)
From: "Joseph W. DeVincentis" <devjoe>
Subject: Re: Acka: *ping*

Malenkai wrote, in regard to Magic Letter picking:
> The timestamp on my magic letter guess was 12:38 -0500, but it hit the
> forum first.  Could the unofficial timekeeper :) verify which e-mail
> was actually first.  As I recall, Bascule is in +0100, thus his mailer
> not configured properly, and it should be 13:11.  

Actually, if the UK is back on standard time now, he should be in +0000.
In any case, it appears his mail was held up by internal network problems
for about 3 hours.

> The Scholar should wait until this is sorted out.

By rule, the scholar should respond to whatever message he receives first.

/dev/joe

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 31 Oct 1996 22:04:34 -0500
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: CFJ 117 (/dev/joe)

This has been reassigned to /dev/joe

Oct 31 22:05 EST: -10 fnord: did not respond to CFJ 117

Clerk of the Courts
- ---------------------------------------------------------------------
Call for Criminal Judgement 117
  Subject:  Illegal *pinging*
Initiator:  ThinMan
    Judge:  fnord (declined to judge)
2nd Judge:  /dev/joe (selected Oct 31, 1996, 22:05 EST)
Judgement:

Statement:

Guy Fawkes has broken the rules.

ThinMan's Reasoning:

The judge need only consider Guy Fawkes' own words:

>According to the rules, a message like this should be posted:
>
>Today is Friday, the 25th day of October, in the Year of Our Lord
>1996, and the Machine That Goes *ping* Has Gone *ping* today.  Since I
>have been scholar, the Machine has gone *ping* 6 times.
>
>However; I should have posted this message yesterday:
>
>Today is Thursday, the 24th day of October, in the Year of Our Lord
>1996, and the Machine That Goes *ping* Has Gone *ping* today.  Since I
>have been scholar, the Machine has gone *ping* 6 times.
>
>Making today's message:
>
>Today is Friday, the 25the day of October, in the Year of Our Lord
>1996, and the Machine That Goes *ping* Has Gone *ping* today.  Since I
>have been scholar, the Machine has gone *ping* 7 times.
>
>Alas, I have broken the rules.
>
>Guy Fawkes
>Scholar of *ping*

I respect Mr. Fawkes, and appreciate his contributions to the game.
It is particularly ironic that he has run afoul of a rule of his own
creation.  I think it very good sportsmanship that he admitted his
error at this time, and urge the judge to go easy on him.

Recommended Penalty:

1 day in Gaol

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 31 Oct 1996 22:09:12 -0500
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: RFC -- another win idea

Joseph W. DeVincentis wrote:

> > IF AND ONLY IF today *o*s *o* *** ****** ***** o* ****, THEN the Machine
> > That Goes *ping* shall go *ping*.
> 
> Thank you, Malenkai.  I already figured *that* s went there.
> 

We all did, I suppose.  I was looking for an S in the last word,
that wasn't there.

> RFC: Razzing the Magic Letter Picker

Fine by me.

Malenkai
thinking about calling a politeness moon

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 31 Oct 1996 22:28:29 -0500
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: Financial

I will volunteer for that Financier job, unless someone else wants
it.  I have also updated the current account balances as of this post
on the web page.  If you do not have web access, and need this info,
please let me know.

Also, whenever you do any financial transaction, if you (incl
officers) could do something similar to the pointlog for scores, I
would really appreciate it.   Something in the following format that
I can easily cut/paste into the log (I don't care about dates):

snowgod -100 bought wings
guy fawkes -10 tammany P XXXX (tabulator does this, bot someday :))

In the second case, that can appear in place of the current tammany
line.  This job is alot of work, and this would really help.  Do this
for bond trades as well.

thx
Malenkai

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 31 Oct 1996 22:42:53 -0500
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: CFJ 318 (ThinMan)

ThinMan amd his robe have been picked for CFJ 318.

Clerk of the Courts
- -------------------------------------------------------------------------
Call For Judgement 318
  Subject: Another paradox CFJ
Initiator: Guy Fawkes
    Judge: ThinMan (selected Oct 31, 1996, 22:44h EST)
Judgement:

Statement:

If a Witchhunt is legally called against a player, and in the
ensuing voting, equal numbers of "No! E said the Earth is flat" and "BURN
THE WITCH!" votes are cast, the legality of burning the alleged Heretic
cannot be determined with finality.

Guy Fawkes's Reasoning:

In the miraculous event that this CFJ escapes the fate of the
rest of Guy Fawkes' paradox win attempts and is judged TRUE, the initator
claims a win under Rule 219.

>From Rule 792:"After the Witchhunt is over, a simple majority (50% or more) will
determine whether or not the alleged Heretic has been burned."

This is a most odd way of defining a simple majority.  In a 50-50 split,
two simple majorities exist -- one determining that he has been burned,
and one determining that he has not been burned.

And for the quantum physicists out there, the wording of the rule
"whether or not the alleged Heretic has been burned" does not admit to
the possibility of him being both burned and not burned.

And so, the legality of burning this heretic cannot be determined with
finality.

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 31 Oct 1996 22:50:00 -0500
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: CFJ 318 (ThinMan)

Malenkai wrote:

> Call For Judgement 318
>   Subject: Another paradox CFJ
> Initiator: Guy Fawkes
>     Judge: ThinMan (selected Oct 31, 1996, 22:44h EST)
> Judgement:

> This is a most odd way of defining a simple majority.  In a 50-50 split,
> two simple majorities exist -- one determining that he has been burned,
> and one determining that he has not been burned.

This should be judged FALSE.  Game custom burns the witch if 50%
or more of the votes are BURN THE WITCH!  This happened
within the last 60 days, I believe, check the ftp archive, I could be
wrong.

There may be a paradox if exactly 0 votes are cast in the witchhunt,
or some of the other hearings, but I havent bothered to call that one
yet either.  I was waiting until the situation actually came up,
that seemed more sporting.  Anyone want a free win?

Count Tabula

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 31 Oct 1996 20:11:30 -0800 (PST)
From: Brian Raiter <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: *ping*: RFC

> > IF AND ONLY IF today *o*s *o* *** ****** ***** o* ****, THEN the Machine 
> > That Goes *ping* shall go *ping*.
> 
> Thank you, Malenkai.  I already figured *that* s went there.

I *tried* to tell you folks: ask for "A". But did anyone listen? Nooooooooooo.

> RFC: Razzing the Magic Letter Picker
> 
> Add to the end of section VII of rule 1240:
> "For three days after the scholar posts the updated version of the machine's
> truth, any player who feels the player who picked the magic letter chose
> poorly may publicly razz that player for his decision, and no politeness
> moon may be called in this case.  This takes precedent over rule 400."

While I appreciate the feeling behind this, I couldn't support it. We
students should maintain a level of civility when pursuing our
studies.

b

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 01 Nov 1996 00:05:08 -0500
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: CFJ 318 (ThinMan)

Malenkai wrote:

> [CFJ 318] should be judged FALSE.  Game custom burns the witch if 50%
> or more of the votes are BURN THE WITCH!  This happened
> within the last 60 days, I believe, check the ftp archive, I could be
> wrong.

I have found the game custom alluded to above.  It is from a politeness
moon voting results (R 400) mail message from september 8th.  R 400
has the exact same wording as R 729 in terms of the 50% or more
qualifier to the word "majority".  I ask the judge to consider this
game custom, and consider the game custom that allows officers some
leeway in interpreting the rules, and allows that a non-paradoxical
interpretation is preferrable to a paradoxical one.

The reason this one bothers me so much is that it actually came up,
and no one called it a paradox then, yet the hypothetical case *is*
claimed a paradox.

- ----------------------------------------------------------------------
The votes received on the politeness moon called on this is not a name
were:

"Yes, he was polite",
        this is not a name
        snowgod
        Guy Fawkes

"No, he was not polite",
        Malenkai
        IdiotBoy
        Wayne
        ThinMan

abstain
        /dev/joe

the voting shows this is not a name was not polite, as "simple majority"
is qualified from its normal meaning with the 50% or more clause if you
count in the strictest sense (although nothing seems "simple" in this
game).

Sep 08 22:55 EDT: -3 this is not a name: politeness moon

Assistant Tabulator

------------------------------

End of Ackanomic Digest V1 #324
*******************************